Jump to content

Talk:Mike Lynch (businessman)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Michael Richard Lynch)

Untitled

[edit]

I've removed this part:

based on the theories of 18th century English mathematician Thomas Bayes

It's silly. Bayesian networks and Bayesian filtering are standard techniques in artificial intelligence. Though there is obviously a connection to the historical work of Bayes, saying that this work is "based on [his] theories" neglects all the intermediate work.

It would be equivalent to saying that the construction of the Channel was "based on the ideas of English mathematician Issac Newton". --Saforrest 21:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I get the ideal but your comment is not very accurate he was actually a research fellow at Cambridge and worked on Bayesian INFERENCE a method that developed extensively in the early nineties well beyond simple Bayesian Filtering and Networks and what was known earlier. To get a PhD you have to do orgignal work . To know more do a literature search on Dr P J Rayner of the University who ran the group at that time, its interesting stuff

Does anyone know what he meant in the CNBC interview that Autonomy could have turned into something more interesting than Google if they had focussed on search in the late 1990s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.199.99.70 (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the boat was named "Bayesian," his academic connection to Bayes should be clarified. 87.227.44.35 (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added something to the footnote about the name of the yacht. Southdevonian (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to make the article a bit more neutral

[edit]

Someone else has tagged the article as looking like a resume. I agree. No doubt Lynch is successful. I removed some claims about how amazing he is where they could not possibly be backed up. This is not to diminish Lynch's success, but rather, the article is more believable if it reads less like a resume. Here are the claims I removed:

  • He is considered a rare example of a European academic turned technology entrepreneur who has taken a start up through to being a global leader.

Not clear who considers him like this, or why this is important.

  • Unlike most students, he combined mathematics, biological and physical sciences, taking the rare combination of advanced physics, mathematics and biochemistry in the IB Tripos.

How do we know what most students do? Why is his "rare" choice of what he did in his second year at university at all relevant? (is it supposed to be the sign of genius?!)

  • His Cambridge doctoral thesis is reported as one of the most widely read pieces of research at the Cambridge University library.

I really doubt this, and we'd need a proper reference, rather than heresay in a newspaper.

  • Lynch was profiled by the Sunday Times with a favorable comparison to Bill Gates

The article cited says "...said Lynch, the closest thing Britain has to its own Bill Gates." That is not necessarily a "favourable comparison". I read it as meaning that there is no one like Bill Gates in Britain. In any case it's just a throw-away remark, it's only been made once by a journalist, and it doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the first paragraph.

I also don't understand the anecdote in the section "Entrepreneurial career" and propose to delete that bit. ComputScientist (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have again deleted the bit about Bill Gates. As you say the article cited says "...said Lynch, the closest thing Britain has to its own Bill Gates." That is not necessarily a "favourable comparison". Unfortunately there has been a history of unsupported claims about Lynch on Wikipedia. I suspect these edits come from employees of the company. Dormskirk (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


You might not like the guy but the Gates comaprison is in multiple of the references and he is probably currently the msot sucessful technology entrepreneur out of the UK (there aren't many) surely the intro should make this point??? After all he went from start up to creating the UK's largest software business.

Dormskirk I put effort into adding other roles and added other bits so please do not just revert, thats just lazy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.33.187 (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now formatted all the references you had added. You may want to read WP:NPA before editing Wikipedia again. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. If a list of "what the papers say" is to be included, surely it should be further down the page (e.g. in "Awards") rather than in the lead. I've done this.
Bill Gates is worth 60 times more the Mike Lynch. I don't think it's a comparison to dwell on.
How does the Guardian and the WSJ know that his thesis is "most widely read in the University library"? Unless the university can verify it, it's just a rumour, and not worth reporting here. (Maybe WSJ and Guardian learnt this "fact" from wikipedia!)
Overall this article must not be about liking or disliking the subject, it is not about praising his achievements, it is about reporting facts. ComputScientist (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the notable thing aboutt he guy is that he probably the most sucessful tech entrepreneur out of the UK. The comparison is 'the nearest thing Britain has to Bill gates' not that he is Bill gates. Are you saying he is not in the top 2 of European software entrepreneurs....all the references seem to say he is execeptionally sucessful? Surely the summary needs to refelct this?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.33.187 (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He successful, I agree. His success can be measured by the fact that he cofounded a company which was sold to HP for a large amount. That's an indisputable fact. That's a much better way of proving his success than quoting some journalist who once said a nice thing about him, or by a vague, unverifiable statement about "probably the most successful in the UK". So that's the thing to put in the lead. ComputScientist (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ARM Holdings sold to Softbank for about 3x as much. That is own research oviously so can't go on WP, but on at least one metric, there is a more successful British tech entrepreneur. Katrinabryce (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

now this is getting silly, there are a significant number of references supporting this in the item and many more can be added, its not one journalist's view. Other than a large body of coverage from quality news sources what fact would support that he is to date the msot sucessful UK software entrepreneur...on that basis why are you so sure about any fact...is Bill Gates sucessful, how do we know this is not from a large number of news sources , earnings announcements from microsoft etc.... How many references do you want..please be specific and from which sources will you arbitrarily accept, the UK's premier newspapers and the FT don't seem good enough for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.33.187 (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the page on Bill Gates: the first paragraph contains basic facts about him, not selected quotes from journalists. That's how first paragraphs work. ComputScientist (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear from the short factual lead that I have written that MRL is successful. I do not see any reason to make a comparison with Bill Gates in the lead, nor to include flattering quotes from journalists. Please explain here why these things need to be in the article lead before undoing my edits. I have not deleted them, I have put them further down the page.
Please also explain why it is important or verifiable that his second year of undergraduate studies were unusual, and also how you have verified that his PhD thesis is the most widely read in the university library, before undoing my edits on those parts. Thanks. ComputScientist (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other issue with this article is that it lacks balance. It makes many superlative statements about Lynch but the short paragrph about the spat with Oracle fails to mention that Ellison believed Lynch was a liar. See [1] and many more. A balanced article would just keep to the facts and contain neither the positive opinions or the negative ones. Dormskirk (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added section about HP writedown due to accounting irregularities NBeddoe (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

good but it needs to be fleshed out more. The HP lawsuit continues now and is quite serious. This part needs to be updated with more recent information. 208.90.214.42 (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute with HP

[edit]

Although this deserves a mention, I don't think we can carefully document the full details of the case here, nor keep on top of it. So I propose to keep it brief and neutral. ComputScientist (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In particular the bit about "a derivative action to pay them and for them to help HP sue Lynch..." sounds too technical to me. Dormskirk (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Dormskirk didn't know the talk page etiquette. But while I'm here are the oracle and cazenove points big enough for the article, especially as Quattrone resolved the oracle controversy?...what are your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.223.163 (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem re the etiquette. Re Cazenove, if Khan was indeed bullied as is alledged, then such actions by Lynch cannot be condoned even if Autonomy denies that Khan was banned from meetings. Re Oracle if you look at this: [2] it appears that Quattrone was acting for Autonomy when he made the offending presentation: so I would have thought Lynch cannot disassociate himself from Quattrone's actions. My view is that these allegations are big enough for the article, because there is a pattern to the three disputes (oracle, cazenove and HP). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My personal preference is not to have much negativity on a biographical page like this. The Oracle and Cazenove points are quite old, and just "he said this, but he said this". People say nasty things for all kinds of reasons, and we cannot do justice without going into the full background, and that would give it all undue weight. The HP issue is ongoing but I would still rather keep it to a minimum because so far between HP and Lynch personally it is again just a battle of words, as far as I can tell. What happens between HP, their shareholders and their lawyers is more substantial, but not really relevant to this page, there are other pages for that.
On the other hand if we are going to have a big he-said-she-said on HP then we perhaps have to also include Cazenove, Oracle etc., as Dormskirk says. ComputScientist (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous editor (will get round to registering! I'm still learning all this stuff). I think all the above are good points and perhaps the oracle thing should or shouldn't be in as it was resolved and is old , however on cazenove there was no dispute with cazenove only khan himself , infact if you search this JPMC (Cazenove) was actually an Autonomy advisor on the HP deal and cazenove/jpmc was one of autonomy's biggest customers

I think one analyst giving a one line quote in an article after the fact does not seem worthy of a section heading or even mention.

On Quattrone if you read the articles Quattrone was not acting for Lynch when he sent the presentation to oracle but he was trying to suggest an idea to them. He only starts acting for Autonomy months later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.223.163 (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re Khan see [3]. This also suggests that Khan did work for JP Morgan Cazenove at the time and therefore it was a Cazenove employee that was subsequently banned from meetings. I think the key points for the article are (i) Khan, working for Cazenove, tried to warn as early as 2008 that there were problems and (ii) Lynch banned him from meetings. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intro paragraph

[edit]

An anonymous editor wants to put that Lynch is first and foremost a scientist. Lynch does not describe himself in this way in his bio at his website, http://autonomyaccounts.org/biography/ . I would say that Lynch has made substantial contributions to science but I cannot find evidence that he is an active scientist, according to the definition at scientist. The Royal Society criteria for fellows does not use the word scientist (https://royalsociety.org/about-us/fellowship/election/). ComputScientist (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC) The citation at the FRS is about his work in machine learning and pattern recognition, he is also published so I think this is now a good compromise.TO be an FRS you have to be a royal or an eminent scientist, he is not a royal. For the disputes section I am not sure if the Oracle thing deserves mention so I was going to delete it but for now I just stopped it being a section in its own right...thoughts? should it go completely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.239.30 (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Oracle piece gained quite a bit of media attention at the time and certainly should be retained. In any case properly sourced information really should not be removed from Wikipedia. Dormskirk (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "scientist": Sorry but I cannot find a reference for your claim "TO be an FRS you have to be a royal or an eminent scientist". That is not what is written at the Royal Society pages nor on wikipedia at FRS. Nor can I find a place where anyone describes Lynch as a scientist; he does not describe himself in this way on his bio pages at autonomy accounts or invoke. His page at the Royal Society does not mention science. I cannot find any recent published papers by Lynch (please point me to them). It is important that wikipedia does not attribute new things to people, especially in the first sentence on a page. I have a lot of respect for Lynch but I don't understand why you are so determined to portray him as an active scientist. ComputScientist (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michael Richard Lynch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Richard Lynch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Michael Richard Lynch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@[[ਉਸੇਰ :
  1. ਇੰਟਰਨੈਟੜਛੀਵੇਬੋਟ |I nternetArchiveBot]]
2409:4055:2D31:3E32:0:0:CD49:540C (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michael Richard Lynch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Richard Lynch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and Honors Section

[edit]

This section contains numerous immaterial or poorly sourced accolades.

The BIMA Hall of Fame does not list Mike Lynch as a member having been inducted in 2012. [1]

There is no source for the statement "He was named Entrepreneur of the Year in 1999 by the Confederation of British Industry." The linked source indicates that a "Dr M Lynch" received an achievement award (not an outstanding achievement award) from the IIE in 1996, but makes no mention of any awards being granted by the Confederation of British Industry in 1999.

The link to the time magazine source is dead, but an archived page indicates that "Time Digital Europe" included Mike Lynch as one the "Digital 25," an "A-List [featuring] 25 people who will change the way you work, phone and play." While notable, this is not quite the same as saying "Time magazine named Lynch in their 25 most influential technology people in Europe in 2000" because Time Digital Europe is a subdivision of Time Magazine and the article does not explicitly state that the names listed are the most influential technology people.

The linked source for The World Economic Forum is dead. An archive of the linked source does not seem to support this claim. The World Economic Forum does not describe this program as an award, but rather as a "global community of start-up and growth-stage companies with the potential to significantly impact business and society through the design, development and deployment of new technologies." [2]

The "Lady Margaret Beaufort fellows" are "elected by [Christ's College] Governing Body in recognition of their commitment to the College." This does not seem to be particularly noteworthy achievement to a general public audience.[3]

The "European Technology Forum" appears to be a trade show. Again, This does not seem to be particularly noteworthy achievement to a general public audience.

Runner-up for Best investor relations by a CEO at a non-FTSE 100 company for IR Magazine UK seems to be an extremely niche accomplishment. This might be noteworthy if the subject received the accolade, but he did not.

Wikipedia's BLP policy states BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. This section contains poorly sourced and overstated claims seems prone to overstatement.

References

  1. ^ https://bima.co.uk/bima-programmes/hall-of-fame/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://www.weforum.org/pages/technology-pioneers-programme-faq. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ https://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/fellows. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Title Change

[edit]

Should not the title be changed to "Mike Lynch" as that is the name he is most recognised by?

"Mike Lynch" currently redirects to a disambiguation page with list of some 22 people named Michael / Mike Lynch. But "Mike Lynch (businessman)" would work. Dormskirk (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing

[edit]

UK's Mike Lynch missing after yacht sinks off Sicily, source says By Reuters August 19, 20241:43 PM GMT+1

LONDON, Aug 19 (Reuters) - British tech entrepreneur Mike Lynch is missing after a luxury yacht was struck by a violent storm and sank off the Sicilian capital Palermo on Monday, a person familiar with the rescue operation said.

Reporting by Paul Sandle and Sachin Ravikumar; Editing by Kate Holton

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-mike-lynch-missing-after-yacht-sinks-off-sicily-source-says-2024-08-19/ Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal & Civil Case Autonomy

[edit]

Should there not be at least the bare bones of the nature of the case, and the result? Rustygecko (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of superyacht Bayesian

[edit]

Note that The Guardian has now skipped the complicated charter arrangements and simply describes the superyacht Bayesian as being "owned" by Lynch's wife, Angela Bacare.[1] RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Grierson, Jamie; Tondo, Lorenzo (20 August 2024). "Sicily yacht sinking: Morgan Stanley International chair Jonathan Bloomer among missing". The Guardian. London, United Kingdom. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-08-20. Fifteen people were rescued, including Lynch's wife, Angela Bacares, who owned the boat, and a one-year-old girl who was saved by her mother.

Mike was born in England not Ireland. And was very proud of being English

[edit]

Mike was born in England. 2A02:C7C:4115:1E00:F973:7E0A:BA38:DF65 (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"He was born to an Irish immigrant family in Ilford, Essex in the 1970s. His father was a fireman from County Cork and his mother was a nurse from County Tipperary in Ireland." - https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/mike-lynch-tech-tycoon-bill-gates-britain-sicily-superyacht-disaster-b1177288.html Katrinabryce (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was actually born in 1965 (not the 1970s)... and where is the 'reliable source' that mentions he grew up near Chelmsford? The school he went to, in Woodford Green, that's London. 2600:1700:A460:1300:3F25:4F66:4DDB:FBD8 (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2A02:C7C:4115:1E00:F973:7E0A:BA38:DF65 "and was very proud to be British" - source please? It isn't true! Irish. 2001:16B8:B2AB:6500:34E6:A77E:A731:CFF (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2024

[edit]

He is confirmed to have passed away. 94.254.55.25 (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/21/bayesian-superyacht-sicily-sinking-missing-mike-lynch/ TWM03 (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Already done MadGuy7023 (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2024 (2)

[edit]

AFTER: His mother was a nurse from County Tipperary and his father a firefighter from County Cork in Ireland. ADD: Prior to leaving school and starting his Cambridge degree, he worked as a hospital cleaner during the school vacation. 163.1.120.21 (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His body was found.

[edit]

Can someone update the article and convert references to past tense? Blepii (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death

[edit]

The bodies of Mike Lynch and his daughter, Hannah, have been recovered. Both have died. [4]https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/mike-lynch-yacht-sicily-bayesian-latest-missing-search/ar-AA1pa0xO?ocid=BingNewsSerp [5]https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/breaking-mike-lynch-daughter-hannahs-33499486 WYVRNj (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is lacking a reputable source. The Daily Mail and Daily Mirror are both considered tabloids which should be avoided in citations (The Daily Mail is a deprecated source).
I'm not able to find any reputable news agency reporting the confirmation and identification of his or his daughter's body, and the sources currently cited in the article feature no mention of it either. I believe that the article should be reverted to his "missing" status unless official confirmation can be cited. Bugfroggy (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the changes were premature, although it is hard to imagine any other outcome. Three of the sources in the section date from 19 August. The fourth dates from today, but says that five bodies - not six - have been found. Southdevonian (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct - as of now, the five bodies recovered from the vessel have not yet been identified:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/21/yacht-wreck-sicilian-coast-rescue-mike-lynch
"Some UK media were also reporting that two of the bodies were those of Lynch and his daughter. The Guardian has not been able to independently verify this and there has been no formal confirmation from the authorities."
Yes, it seems likely that no one survived, but it's tasteless to be so hasty like this. 195.180.53.190 (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This source in The Register names Lynch. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says it is reliable. It links in turn to The Daily Telegraph which says: "Mike Lynch and his 18-year-old daughter Hannah are believed to be among five bodies found in the search of the luxury superyacht Bayesian on Wednesday..." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if The Register is considered reliable, it is reporting on the content of another news provider ('reportedly...'), making the point moot. The Telegraph article's uncertain wording ('believed to be') shouldn't be deemed sufficient for updating this article so soon. Believed by whom exactly? How reputable are they?
This should really be left as 'missing' until his body is confirmed found by the proper authorities. 2A00:23C8:5D3C:D600:85D3:FB48:E6B:ED9D (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmation:
"Mike Lynch confirmed dead after yacht sank off Sicily coast during storm"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/22/body-found-missing-uk-tech-entrepreneur-mike-lynch-yacht-bayesian-sicily
"The British tech entrepreneur Mike Lynch has been confirmed dead by search and rescue authorities after his yacht sank off the coast of Sicily during a violent storm, according to officials."
I think we knew this would be the outcome but the premature announcement of his death was disrespecful IMO but now, very very sadly, we have confirmation. 195.180.53.190 (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We now have BBC television news (surely a reliable source?) this morning UK time reporting to the effect 'until the final body is found'. Technically we don't know that all six missing are dead. However, given the five bodies sadly already found the chances one missing person will now be found alive seem to be so remote even the BBC has concluded that it is a body that is going to be found next. I think it would be tasteless to explain my next statement, why I think it is the case, but I don't know why it is particularly Lynch and his daughter "believed" to be among the five found, or who it is that believes this. There is no proven information that the outstanding missing person is dead or alive; however there is enough now, even for the BBC, to conclude that the sixth person is dead, meaning all the previously missing are dead. We basically have the evidence from what we already know now, even without finding the final person. aspaa (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above
"Mike Lynch confirmed dead after yacht sank off Sicily coast during storm"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/22/body-found-missing-uk-tech-entrepreneur-mike-lynch-yacht-bayesian-sicily
"The British tech entrepreneur Mike Lynch has been confirmed dead by search and rescue authorities after his yacht sank off the coast of Sicily during a violent storm, according to officials." 195.180.53.190 (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Porticello is not part of Villa San Giovanni, but it is part of Santa Flavia. Wikipedia automatically send on Villa's page but actually is wrong. Please reroute wiki. Thank you. Soppalco (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done That's an issue with the Porticello redirect page, not this page. I don't know anything about the area so I'm not going to change things on those articles, but if you or others would like to, or start a discussion over there to get it changed, go ahead. Popcornfud (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox at Villa San Giovanni lists includes Porticello in the list of Frazioni? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a different Porticello. The yacht sank off Porticello in Sicily. The Villa San Giovanni Porticello is on the mainland. Southdevonian (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Changed Porticello to point to Porticello, Sicily. - Davidships (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2024

[edit]

Change Mike Lynch's spouse's name to the correct surname -> Angela Bacares to Angela Barcares JasperHDB (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Which of the sources uses this name? I don't see that any of them do. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exact date of death

[edit]

I see we are reverting back that the date of death is unknown. The Guardian and BBC are reporting that his body was recovered from the wreck of his yacht, which is known to have sunk in the early hours of 19 August. On what basis is the date of death unknown? Are we suggesting that he survived the sinking, swam around for a few days in the storm unnoticed by all the rescuers, then dived down to the seabed and climbed into the wreck? It seems unlikely to me. John (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think anyone is suggesting that. There might be speculation that the passengers, with the boat fully submerged, might have been trapped in cabin spaces with sufficient pockets of air to have enabled survival for some minutes or hours. But even this seems to be a very unlikely scenario. And one that would be almost impossible to verify in any case? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, even if they survived for some minutes or hours, that still would not extend to August 20. The date would still be August 19. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I've re-removed the circa tags. If there are serious sources stating that the date is uncertain, we would need to see them. John (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems I was wrong when I said it was ".. a very unlikely scenario"? see here. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Lynch_(businessman)&oldid=1244721499"